Law Commission recommends insertion of a new clause in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to enable daughter-in-law to claim alimony from in-laws.

In a report submitted to the Government on Tuesday, the Law Commission of India has recommended that the Hindu law should be amended to cast a legal obligation on the father-in-law to maintain and pay alimony to the daughter-in-law when her husband is unable to do so.

Under the law at present, a woman does not have the right to claim alimony from her father-in-law or other in-laws if her husband fails to maintain her due to various reasons, including his physical or mental incapacitation, disappearance or renunciation of the world as a religious choice.

The Law Commission, headed by Justice A P Shah, however, held that there was “sufficient basis in classical Hindu law to cast a legal obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law, when the husband of the latter is unable to do so”. The panel’s report noted that the basis so discovered in the Hindu law lent support to the legislative amendment being proposed by the Commission, as it sought to spell out the father-in-law’s legal obligation to pay maintenance to the daughter-in-law.

According to the panel, insertion of sub-section 4 under Section 18 should read as: “Where the husband is unable to provide for his wife, on account of physical disability, mental disorder, disappearance, renunciation of the world by entering any religious order or other similar reasons, the Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance during her lifetime, from members of the joint Hindu family of the husband, except where the husband has received his share in the joint family property.”

“The right of a Hindu woman, whose husband is unable to provide maintenance to her, must be protected,” held the Commission, while recommending to Law Minister Sadananda Gowda insertion of the new clause in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The clause will exempt only those cases in which the husband has already received his share in the joint family property and in such cases, his wife could get maintenance out of the properties.

As reported by the 'Kerala Law Review' earlier, the issue was referred to the Commission by the Punjab and Haryana High Court last year in a case where the wife of a man of unsound mind had sought one-fourth share in the land belonging to the family from her father-in-law as maintenance for herself, her spouse and their children.

Right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination for progeny is a fundamental right, says the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

In an interesting verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High court, in a judgment passed on Tuesday has allowed jail inmates to have sex with their partners as long as they are married and want to have a child. The court held that the right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination for progeny was a fundamental right.

Justice Surya Kant of the high court has passed these orders while disposing of a petition filed by a couple - Jasvir Singh and Sonia - who are currently lodged in the Central Jail, Patiala. They were awarded the death penalty by a trial court for kidnapping and killing a 16-year-old boy of a rich Hoshiarpur family for a hefty ransom.

The duo had sought permission to stay together and resume their conjugal life for the sake of progeny. They wanted the court to order the jail authorities to make the necessary arrangements in this regard. Jasvir had pleaded that he was arrested within eight months of their marriage. The petitioners claim that their demand is not for personal sexual gratification.

The court however denied Jasvir's plea considering the heinous nature of the crime committed, but enlarged the scope of the petition in larger public interest. The judge held that right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination as an alternative.

"A society which is currently involved in academic and intellectual debates on 'gay-rights' or the recognition of 'third-gender', cannot shy away nor can it keep concealed under the carpet the pragmatic concept of conjugal visits of the jail inmates," the court observed. "To say it differently, time has come and before it is too late, the stake-holders must sit together and deliberate upon this crucial subject and take a holistic view."

Woman employees who had a baby through surrogacy cannot be discriminated against in the matter of granting maternity benefits, holds the Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that there should not be any discrimination against woman employees who had a baby through surrogacy in the matter of granting maternity benefits.

Kerala High Court

The Court gave its ruling in a writ petition filed by P. Geetha, Deputy General Manager, Kerala Livestock Development Board, who obtained a baby through a surrogate mother, against the refusal of the board to grant her maternity leave.

The Kerala Livestock Development Board rejected her request on the ground that its staff rule and regulation did not provide leave to a woman employee who got a baby through surrogacy.

The petitioner contended that there was no justification for refusing maternity leave for the reason that the baby was born thorough a surrogate mother. She also contended that motherhood was an integral part of womanhood, and with advanced assisted-reproduction methods in place, one could not cling to the traditional meaning of maternity. A woman who had a baby through surrogacy should be treated just as a natural mother, and she should not be discriminated merely on the ground that she did not bear a child in her womb, said the petitioner. 

The Kerala High Court speaking through Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu held that the petitioner was entitled to all post-delivery benefits sans the leave for improving the health of the mother after delivery. In fact, the petitioner did not bear the child and she could not insist on leave for convalescing and regaining her health, the court said. 

The Court also observed that child-specific statutory benefits, if any, could be extended to the petitioner.

Sunanda Pushkar died of poisoning, says Delhi Police

In a sensational turn of events, the Delhi police have registered a case of murder against ‘unknown persons’ in connection with the death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of former Union Minister Shashi Tharoor. This startling development comes nearly a year after Sunanda Pushkar, wife of former Union Minister Shashi Tharoor, was found dead at a hotel room in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. 

File Picture: Sunanda Pushkar

Delhi Police Commissioner B.S. Bassi, disclosing this development on Monday said that the conclusions made in a medical report submitted to them on December 29 confirmed that Pushkar was poisoned. He however hastened to add that it was not clear whether she had consumed the poison on her own or it was administered forcefully or by injection.

The report, prepared by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences after studying the viscera report, contradicted the preliminary report, which concluded that it was caused by “overdose of Alprax.”

The new report, it is learnt, rules out the presence of Alprax in the body. 

“To ascertain the quantity of poison we will have to send the samples abroad as it cannot be done in the country. For sending the viscera samples outside India for tests, we are required to register a case which we have. Further, medical reports make it amply clear that it was a case of unnatural death and hence section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code has been invoked,” he said. 

The police also said that if needed, Mr. Tharoor could be called for questioning about the incident, which took place on January 17 last year.

 

Man granted interim bail arrested by police after registering second crime in respect of similar offence; Bombay HC orders probe into the 'high-handed' conduct of the investigating officer

The Bombay High Court has taken strong exception to the act of the Bandra Police in arresting a city resident despite being given interim protection from arrest in a similar case by the Court before.

Bombay High Court

The Bandra Police registered a second case, lodged by the same complainant, just 30 minutes before the man, Abid Hussain, was to arrive at the police station on the High Court's orders. Livid at the circumvention of the court orders, Justice Sadhna Jadhav directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (zone 9) to look into the conduct of the probe officer.

"It is apparent on the face of record that the investigating officer has been hand-in-glove with the complainant.Only to bypass an order passed by this court granting interim relief in favour of Hussain, (the officer) has attemp ted to register a fresh FIR and arrested him although (the officer) was fully aware that in a similar transaction, he (Hussain) has been protected by this court," Justice Jadhav said.

The High Court also pointed out that police had violated procedure by not sending a copy of the FIR to the magistrate and by detaining Hussain's family at the police station to secure his arrest.

"The high-handedness of the police officer is writ large on the face of record. The DCP, zone-9, shall personally look into the manner of the functioning of the investigating officer," the Bombay High Court said, giving the DCP six weeks to conduct an inquiry and file a report in the court before the next hearing of the case on February 6. 

Constitutional validity of National Judicial Appointments Commission Act challenged in 3 separate petitions before the Supreme Court

Three petitions seeking quashing of the new law on appointment of judges were moved in the Supreme Court on Monday, saying the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission was “unconstitutional and violative” of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The petitions were filed barely a few days after the Constitution Amendment Bill setting up the NJAC received the assent of the President of India. 

The petitions were moved separately by the SC Advocates on Record Association and senior advocates Bishwajit Bhattacharyya and Bhim Singh against the constitutional validity of the NJAC.

The petition filed by the SC AoR Association, drafted by advocate Subhash Sharma and settled by senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, contends that the NJAC Act laid down framing of regulations for appointment of judges after due approval by both the Houses of Parliament. The petitioner said that this power could not be delegated to Parliament in the wake of the constitutional provisions that specifically envisaged how judges were to be selected and appointed.

“It is also submitted that the ‘primacy’ of the opinion of Chief Justice of India is sought to be done away with by passing the NJAC Act of 2014, by giving veto powers to any two members of the NJAC (being either the eminent person or the law minister), thereby overruling the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India and other two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court,” stated the petition. It added that a nine-judge bench had already declared that independence of judiciary was a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution and that Parliament could not hence amend it.

Bhattacharyya’s petition described the NJAC as a “severe attack” on the institution of the Chief Justice of India, who will be vetoed out by an overpowering Executive in matters of making appointments. 

The NJAC Act and the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act are ultra vires of the basic structure of the Constitution, as various clauses stipulated therein make a frontal attack on the independence of the Judiciary and on the doctrine of separation of powers, as per the petitions by Bhattacharya and Bhim Singh.